Micah Hanks delivered another of his “articles” that turned out to be yet one more in his series of unoriginal summaries of a book he happened to read. This time it was about the Fisher King from the Holy Grail myth, taken in large measure from The Holy Grail: The History and Legend of the Famous Relic, a 2013 CreateSpace paperback by the “Charles Rivers Editors,” an online content farm producing short, error-riddled slapdash histories for the eBook market. He didn’t bother even to look up the readily accessible texts of the medieval versions of the Fisher King story, merely copying the summary from the Charles Rivers text and delivering some canned remarks on the basic level of symbolism of the Grail and the Fisher King. To be fair, this article is a bit more than a simple summary, for it adds material from an online journal article, includes references to the Da Vinci Code, and also noticed that Doctor Who used the name “Fisher King” last season, so I guess that counts as progress.

Of course, he offered no original reporting or original analysis, and also managed to praise The Golden Bough’s discussion of dying and rising gods without recognizing the century of criticism that followed Frazer’s thesis.

It makes me wonder why he does it, writing pointless summaries and passing them off as pseudo-profound explorations of “mysteries,” and then I saw a notice for an upcoming conference.

The Space and Alien Snowfest ufology conference is coming to Big Bear Feb. 5-7. The conference features special guests George Noory and producer Tom Danheiser of the Coast to Coast AM radio show, along with Jason Martell, Mike Bara and Linda Moulton Howe, who have each appeared on the History Channel show “Ancient Aliens.” Other guests include ufologists Stanton Friedman, Micah Hanks, Richard Dolan and Chase Kloetzke.

Tickets run $209 for a three-day pass or $99 per day. Of course there’s a good reason Hanks keeps cranking out superficial crap: It’s good for business!

Anyway, as part of Hanks’s summary, he brings up the Da Vinci Code and the question of whether the Holy Grail was really Mary Magdalene, alleged wife of Jesus, concluding that the Magdalene’s status “remains a matter of scholarly debate.” Among whom he does not say.

Anyway, as most of you know, I’ve been researching the work of Louis Martin, the French writer who was apparently the first to have proposed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married in an 1886 book called The Gospels without God. As I’ve been learning more about it, the story gets weirder and weirder, but much more interesting. It turns out that Louis Martin isn’t even Louis Martin.

While most secondary sources identify Louis Martin as a French socialist politician, it turns out that they are wrong. That Louis Martin is a different fellow, and as late as 1901 the socialist deputy from the Var was still writing letters to newspapers correcting confusion over whether he wrote the controversial books about Jesus and Freemasonry attributed to his name.

The author in question is actually named Léon Aubry (or Louis Aubry; records give it both ways), and he apparently enjoyed being a bit of a provocateur. He wrote controversial but little-read books on British Israelism, Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene, and, most infamously, why the French national heroine Joan of Arc was wrong. This last book earned him a measure of fame because he claimed that Joan of Arc was in error in saving France from the English, and that both countries would have been better off had the English reigned over France and united the two cross-Channel peoples.

It’s interesting to see that even at so early a date as the 1880s, there was already a confluence of British Israelism, anti-Masonic conspiracies, and Holy Bloodline fantasies in a single author’s fringe work. While I have not been able to read these books, it almost seems like the Holy Bloodline idea came into Aubry’s head as a way of Gallicizing British Israelist ideas and returning the glory of the Davidic Bloodline to France from its proposed home in Britain. I wouldn’t presume that Aubry was quite that coherent in his work—again, I have read only secondary sources on it—but it’s a distinct possibility that the Anglo-French imperial rivalry of the 1880s and 1890s, before the Entente Cordiale, accidentally spawned the Holy Bloodline mythology out of a stew of nationalism and Provencal folktales.

The trouble for Aubry is that there was already an author named Louis Martin, and he happened to be a Freemason. His Masonic brothers accused him of being a traitor to Masonry after seeing the books they thought he was publishing, and Martin said that high ranking Masons became red with rage yelling at him. Martin sought redress from the French courts and sued Aubry and his publisher for damages. The case was heard on December 26, 1896, and the judge concluded that Aubry and his publisher were at fault for causing confusion by selecting a pen name identical to that of a better-known author. He ruled that Aubry and his publisher were together liable for 500 francs in damages. Around the same time, Aubry changed his pen name to Louis Marthin-Chagny “to avoid any confusion that might arise between us and other writers signing the same name.” The bottom line is that we learn from the court records that Aubry’s books were not major sellers. The print run for each book was about 200 copies, of which not all sold.

The photo may not be that of Louis Aubry/ Louis Martin but that of a French senator who shared the same name.

Reply

Kal

1/21/2016 03:21:45 pm

I want to see Ortiz punch someone in the junk in Big Bear, (In San Bernardino, southern California). Ha. But I wouldn't pay over 200 just to see it. Ha. (I know you are kidding). They have snow in winter, but it is not exceptionally a high elevation. Movies are sometimes filmed there. The lake is a popular summer attraction.

Reply

Kal

1/21/2016 03:23:31 pm

"The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. I did not expect people to take it seriously."
Dan Brown, interview on the History channel after the movie came out.

Hardly. In fact, I'm quite the opposite--more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, or many of the other "mysteries" that permeate pop culture. However, the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss.

Reply

Jean Stone

1/21/2016 06:46:57 pm

Because Dan Brown is so meticulous in the research he does for his books...

Incidentally, it's not just history and art (and pacing and good grammar and...) that he absolutely sucks at. His linguistics skills aren't so hot either. Digital Fortress reads like a primer for how Chinese and Japanese do NOT work in reality.

Pop Goes the Reason

1/21/2016 07:59:29 pm

Poor Dan Brown, only making millions by being cynical and brazen enough to publish that stuff after St Umberto fried the whole thing.

Reply

Platy

1/21/2016 10:39:35 pm

Jason: It's funny that you mention the bit about British Israelism. Recently, I (as well as spooky) recommended Justin Woodman's lectures on Lovecraft and the occult. Interestingly enough, the first blog post I read by Woodman was on the "Holy Bloodline" works of Tracy Twyman (who should sound familiar to you) and Nicholas de Vere. What's interesting is towards the end of the post, he points out the similarity between these conspiracy theories and British Israelism. Here's the link: http://ghooriczone.blogspot.com/2011/09/nazi-occult-royalty-are-spawn-of.html

Reply

Time Machine

1/22/2016 03:31:28 am

Isn't the bloodline fused with Lovecraft every bit as useless as ancient astronauts fused with Lovecraft ?

And what a peculiarity - Tracy Twyman, Nicholas De Vere. Laurence Gardner and Michael Lafosse --- all of whom were clones of David Icke.

Reply

Time Machine

1/22/2016 03:33:34 am

And there is also Patrice Chaplin -- she breaks wind and she gets 174 likes on Facebook....

Time Machine

1/22/2016 03:38:40 am

Tracy Twyman would never have the insight to realise that the "Holy Blood. Holy Grail" scam could have been inspired by tenets of British Israelism.

Reply

Anon

1/22/2016 11:35:06 am

Anyone have links or suggestions to clear and succinct critiques of Frazer? I'm genuinely curious.

This blog post sums up the debates of the last century and lists the most influential critiques. None of those sources seem to be easily accessible online.

Reply

Time Machine

1/22/2016 07:03:10 pm

Quote:
"The question of Christ’s historicity, however, is one of history that must be analyzed by historians using proper historical methods."

Here we go again, accepting the presumption that the gospels date from the first century, ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that they date from the first century (a theory that dates from the 20th century that was discounted by earlier 19th century critical Biblical scholarship), and that the biography of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospels is not based on "history" but on Old Testament models.

Time Machine

1/22/2016 07:14:56 pm

The reason why the views of 19th century critical Biblical scholarship were discounted is easy to explain - the Biblical scholars of the 20th century and 21st century were/are all conservative churchgoers. There are only a handful of secular Biblical scholars in existence (eg, Elaine Pagels, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Philip Davies, to give the most prominent names),

R. Joseph Hoffmann co-Founded The Jesus Project 2008-2009 as an intended 5-year project that was a continuation of The Jesus Seminar --- that was based In researching the historical origins of Christianity, but it crashed through lack of interest,

Only Me

1/22/2016 08:58:10 pm

>>>The reason why the views of 19th century critical Biblical scholarship were discounted is easy to explain - the Biblical scholars of the 20th century and 21st century were/are all conservative churchgoers.<<<

Actually, the reasons are varied. Modern Biblical scholarship, as is reflected in the sciences, has evolved. It uses a combination of

and additional Hebrew writings, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, that weren't available to earlier scholars. It also has to be said that Julius Wellhausen's influential document theory—based on literary style and the belief that writing had not been developed prior to 1000 BC—fell out of favor.

I don't think scientific advancements in archaeology, later discoveries and the use of C14 dating should be so easily dismissed due to advancement in scholarship.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

1/22/2016 10:50:06 pm

All too often, when people say that Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis is out of favor, they're implying that the whole notion that the Pentateuch was stitched together has been disproven. I don't know whether that's what you mean, Only Me, but I feel compelled to point out that the documentary hypothesis still stands. It's just evolved radically from Wellhausen's version.

Whereas Wellhausen saw four coherent sources welded together by a redaction process, textual analysts today see a horribly complex process of revisions and adaptations. They are also more willing to give things a late date than they were 50 years ago, when Wellhausen's version still held sway. I don't think they're confident about dating any part of the Bible before the time of the earliest prophets in the eighth century BC.

Only Me

1/23/2016 01:13:45 am

I was referring to the standards that assumed 1. a single author wouldn't refer to God by other titles/names or create a document with more than one theme, and 2. attributed discrepancies or more than one style in passages to later authors/compilers.

I agree the hypothesis stands, and I appreciate how you mentioned it has evolved since its inception. That goes along with my original point.

Time Macbine

1/23/2016 03:56:41 am

>>>Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis<<

LOL - Either the Gospels date from the first century or they don't.

The crap that the earliest Gospel dates from circa 60 AD and (Mark) and the latest Gospel dates from 90 AD (John) is a figment of the imagination dating from the 20th century that was unknown to 19th century scholars because the first Christian to recognise the existence of the Gospels was Justin Martyr in the second century, and his quotations were only similar to the gospels, not identical to them,

The earliest gospel fragment is a couple of verses from the Gospel of John that dates from the approximate time period as Justin Martyr,

The existence of the Gospels cannot be pushed back to the first century,

There are multiple other reasons why the gospels cannot date from the first century..

Time Machine

1/23/2016 04:05:32 am

Let's travel back in time to meet the real historical Pontius Pilate and the real historical Rabbi Caiaphas and let's ask them about the allegations found in the Gospels (not found in the earlier epistles of Paul) and see what they knew about Jesus Christ,

Only Me

1/24/2016 09:34:01 pm

"the Biblical scholars of the 20th century and 21st century were/are all conservative churchgoers"

"The crap that the earliest Gospel dates from circa 60 AD and (Mark) and the latest Gospel dates from 90 AD (John) is a figment of the imagination dating from the 20th century"

Argument invalid.

Time Machine

1/25/2016 12:10:09 am

Justin Martyr was the first Christian to recognise the existence of the Gospels., The crap about the Gospels dating from the first century is just that --- crap invented by conservative scholars of the 20th century.

Time Machine

1/25/2016 12:16:09 am

Biblical scholars since the 20th century have claimed that the Gospel of the Mark is the earliest --- but howlers contained in the gospel of Mark reveal that its author was far removed from the first century.,

I appreciate your comment about Charles River Editions. I went looking for a copy of the book Merchant Kings and stumbled on one of their books and decided not to buy it. Meanwhile as you note, regardless of what side of the channel the 'conspiracy' comes from, it may be worthwhile for your readers to note an economic and mathematical premise known as "the law of the excluded middle." Gender is as does where 'the other' is concerned as well as race: Or does it (Which is the question it seems those 'conspirators' fail to ask directly.

Reply

Time Machine

1/22/2016 08:40:17 pm

British Israelism has morphed into the extreme-right Christian Identity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Reply

Kal

1/22/2016 08:59:58 pm

Dan Brown often said one thing to one group, and changed his mind to talk to other groups. When called to task, he would claim it was fiction, but when with his conspiracy buddies, it was not. He also got sued for plagiarizing other works, but because he was rich, he got away with it.

Reply

Bill Morgan

1/24/2016 11:41:29 am

Jason does a great job of debunking conspiracies. I would like to see him start debunking government false flag operations. False Flag operations are only conspiracies in the minds of the tin foil hat crowd. We Skeptics know they are not true. Here is a list to start with.